Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 Nov 2000

Vol. 526 No. 3

Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.

John Bruton

Ceist:

1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 5 July 2000 with the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association. [21095/00]

John Bruton

Ceist:

2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 27 July 2000 with the social partners. [21096/00]

John Bruton

Ceist:

3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the timeframe he has set for the Government's high level consultations with the social partners in advance of the budget which he announced recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21097/00]

John Bruton

Ceist:

4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 13 September 2000 with the executive committee of IBEC; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21098/00]

Ruairí Quinn

Ceist:

5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the social partners in Dublin Castle on 27 July 2000. [21334/00]

Ruairí Quinn

Ceist:

6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the representations he has had from the social partners in regard to the current level of inflation and the potential consequences for the Partnership for Prosperity and Fairness; when he last met the social partners; when he next plans to meet them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21335/00]

Ruairí Quinn

Ceist:

7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the meeting of the social partners on 22 September 2000 to discuss the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; his views on the concerns expressed by the trade union movement and the community pillar on the implications for the programme of the continuing high level of inflation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21336/00]

Ruairí Quinn

Ceist:

8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his address to the IBEC executive meeting on 13 September 2000. [21337/00]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 27 July 2000 with the social partners. [22070/00]

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of recent meetings with the social partners to discuss the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. [22959/00]

Ruairí Quinn

Ceist:

11 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the purpose and terms of reference of the talks between IBEC and the ICTU currently being chaired by his Department regarding the operation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; when the talks will conclude; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22964/00]

Ivan Yates

Ceist:

12 Mr. Yates asked the Taoiseach if he has any plans to include representatives of the environmental sector as an additional pillar in social partnership and to include them as full members of the National Economic and Social Forum. [24066/00]

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

13 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings with the social partners. [24070/00]

John Bruton

Ceist:

14 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the official engagements he undertook on his visit to Birmingham on 5 November 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25500/00]

Ruairí Quinn

Ceist:

15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his attendance at and address to the National Conference of the Confederation of British Industry on 5 November 2000 in Birmingham. [25515/00]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 15, inclusive, together.

On a point of order, Questions Nos. 14 and 15 relate to the Taoiseach's visit to Birmingham. I respectfully suggest they have nothing to do with Questions Nos. 1 to 13 which deal with social partnership and that perhaps a mistake has been made.

They are the same issues I talked about—

They are not.

—social partnership and the economy.

Let us proceed.

This grouping is not very satisfactory from the point of view of coherent questioning by the Opposition.

The Chair will have to allow us much injury time.

Is the Taoiseach going too fast for Deputy Bruton?

I object to questions being piled together when they are unrelated. The Deputy should appreciate this point as he will be in opposition soon enough.

On 27 July the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and I attended the second plenary meeting of the social partners. The purpose of the meeting was to review implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. Presentations were given on each of the operational frameworks and, as is clear from the first and second progress reports, which have been lodged in the Oireachtas Library, an impressive amount of progress has been made during the first seven months of the agreement. The Government is firmly committed to maintaining this level of momentum in the months ahead.

At the plenary meeting in July, I undertook that we would engage in a process of consultation with the social partners on the budget. The first meeting took place on Friday, 22 September, and a number of further meetings have been held. The Government will consider very carefully all proposals and priorities put forward. This will be done by reference to their cost, their likely benefits, their implications for the achievement of the objectives of the PPF and their probable impact on behaviour and expectations, particularly from the perspective of minimising the effects of inflation. The Government has not ruled out any options and I believe that sensible choices can be made, taking into account the views of the social partners and the objective economic analysis which must underpin any budgetary strategy.

Separately, and in accordance with the terms of the PPF, a meeting was held on 17 October at the request of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to consider the problems caused by current inflationary pressures. Under the procedures in question, a process of discussion between the parties to the pay agreement was initiated. I am satisfied that these are being undertaken in a constructive spirit, although it is too early to say what the outcome will be. The parties, however, share a commitment to the continuation of the social partnership model and, in particular, to the full implementation of the PPF.

In the light of the progress made, I have invited the parties to continue with the process of discussion with a view to achieving a balanced outcome. In that regard, the decision last week by the ICTU executive to continue with those discussions is both welcome and encouraging.

In my remarks at the IBEC executive meeting on 13 September, I placed particular emphasis on social partnership as a problem-solving process. It has enabled many pressures and constraints to be overcome in the past, especially in reducing unemployment, generating jobs and deepening competitiveness. Similarly, social partnership can and should be used in the future to help us address new challenges in the most effective way possible, particularly with regard to housing and public transport. I covered similar themes in my address to the Confederation of British Industry in Birmingham on 5 November – a copy of my speech is available in the Oireachtas Library. This was the sole engagement undertaken by me during my visit. In my address, I placed particular emphasis on the economic and social changes which have taken place over the past decade and I set them in the context of the growing opportunities for Irish and British businesses arising from the ever-deepening relationship between our two countries. At my meeting with the ICMSA during the summer, we had a comprehensive exchange of views on the overall economic situation and, of course, on those issues of particular concern to the agriculture sector.

On the issue of widening representation in the social partnership process, the practice is well established now that any organisation wishing to become part of the process should secure the agreement of the appropriate social partner pillar. In the event of a positive response, the Government would consider such applications sympathetically, taking due account of such factors as continuance of a fair balance in representation as between the four pillars. It is my understanding that no environmental organisation has yet sought formal agreement for inclusion under the appropriate pillar – in this case, the community and voluntary pillar. Such interests, however, are already represented in the National Economic and Social Forum.

Will the Taoiseach agree that the budget is not being drawn up primarily by the Minister for Finance but is being negotiated with the social partners and that the budget presented in the House will be the result of negotiation with very important interests outside the House, namely, the social partners, without any input from this House? Will he agree that this is the case given that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has set budget day as the day it will decide whether to continue with the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness?

Over the years, and this year is no exception, the social partners have always made it clear that it is not their wish to take away from the role of the Executive other than to do what everybody else does, which is to put forward their views. There is a social welfare forum where all the interest groups come together to put their views.

Under the social partnership process the social partners can at any time request the chairman of the central review committee to raise issues that create difficulties and this year, because the inflationary figures are much higher than they were when we negotiated the PPF, that measure was used. Since September a number of discussions took place on how we can reduce the impact of inflationary pressures on the economy. The successes and commitments outlined in the programme have been pulled back to an extent because of inflationary pressures and that is being examined in the context of making sure account is taken of that. Separate from that, the ICTU made its normal budgetary submission to the Minister last week or the week before and it has also made those points in the public domain.

Is it not the case that the Minister for Finance is being politically chaperoned on this budget because of the unnecessary errors he made the last time and that the Government is using the social partners as a form of political proofing of the Minister's budget in a fashion that goes against the tradition whereby this House is the first to hear of his proposals under the Constitution?

No, that certainly is not true. The same conventions will take place this year as every other year and these discussions will continue. I have been around, as has the Deputy, for many budgets and I assure him there is no change in that regard. However, the social partners and other organisations put a great deal of effort into making budget submissions, more so than they did in the early part of the last decade, and that is a major process. I assure the Deputy it does not take from the traditional position.

Given that last year's budget was both inflationary and socially divisive, bringing us to the point where the pay component of the current social partnership agreement is seriously at risk, will the Taoiseach indicate that the Government's priority is to ensure the agreement stays intact and that it regards the budget and its contents in respect of income tax as central to ensuring the agreement remains intact? Will he give an assurance that the utterances he made in New York and elsewhere in regard to the focus of attention on the low paid will be reflected in the budget?

On the general question, the answer is yes. The Government is very conscious of the pressures on incomes as a result of recent inflation and we must be vigilant in avoiding a wage driven inflationary spiral and the domino effect across different sectors if we are to maintain our traditional relativities and competitiveness. For that reason, in the budget we must take account of social partnership and all the benefits it has for the economy and individuals. The power to the individual derives from the fact that it keeps Ireland competitive and maintains high economic growth, activity and employment. That is a central theme. The other demands, issues and the commitments in the partnership programme must also be taken into account.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Is he familiar with the report produced by the National Economic and Social Forum in respect of the impact of one of the measures of last year's budget, to whit the infamous individualisation proposals, where the analysis done by the NESF showed that 80% of resources went to the top 20% of earners and that, if that policy were maintained, as was threatened by the Minister last year, the effect this year would be that 98% of resources would go to the top 20% of earners? Does the Taoiseach see the maintenance of individualisation as being in accordance with the overall objective of ensuring that social partnership in general and this agreement in particular is maintained and continues?

Many balances must be achieved. Low pay is a very important one, and fairness in how people receive their income, what taxes they pay on those incomes, two income earners and one income earners are all, in their own way, priorities for that category. As always in the budget, the Minister for Finance must use in a fair way whatever resources exist to give as much equity as he possibly can. It is hoped that those issues will be addressed successfully again in this budget.

Does the Taoiseach regard as a fair outcome the outturn of the impact of individualisation last year, where 80% of resources was focused on 20% of top earners, whatever about the ideological underpinning which informed it?

As the Deputy knows, I have repeatedly said that we must be conscious that the problems of our tax system are probably on the lower end. Although I am aware of the report he mentioned, I am sure he is equally aware of the international reports and reports by some of our own bodies which have shown that we do more for the low paid than any other countries which are members of the European Union. That is not to say we have done enough.

Does the Taoiseach agree that social partnership is facing a crisis because the inflation rate upon which it was negotiated by Government was 3% and the actual inflation rate is now around 7%, and that the people who negotiated those levels of pay increase in the public sector in particular are feeling very badly because, in the private sector, the terms of the agreement are being ignored by many employers who pay well over the terms of the PPF?

Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a concern in the public sector with the position of low paid workers where, for example, clerical officers have in recent years seen their pay rates increase by about 109% after tax whereas Secretaries-General of Departments have seen their pay rates increase by more than 200% after tax, and that there is a demand now not just for compensation for inflation, which is well ahead of the Government's predictions which were the basis of the original agreement, but also for the introduction of an element into pay of a minimum lump sum which would be of guaranteed equal benefit to the low paid rather than simple percentage increases which tend to disproportionately benefit the better paid and which have been aggravated by a tax policy from the Government which has been inordinately skewed in favour of the better off?

Those in the social partnership process who negotiated the agreement did so on the best figures available at that time. It is shown that inflationary figures have meant there has effectively been a cutback in that to which they would have believed they were entitled. That is the issue that must be addressed and it is on that that negotiations are centring.

People in many grades throughout the public sector will make their cases to the new benchmarking body on precisely the point made by Deputy Bruton because they believe the old relativities and analogues, which have not served us well, allow them to put forward and construct cases where they believe they will do better. That is what the benchmarking body will do. It commenced its work yesterday and people are entitled to put forward their scales. I think they will do so on the basis of what the Deputy has said.

The other part of the question is that we have to try to moderate inflation. At the turn of the year we have to see how some of the figures will fall out. We cannot resolve many of the international issues, including the euro and oil prices, but I hope they will become a bit better than they have been during the year. We can help to moderate inflation by what we do on tax, expenditure and programmes under our fiscal control. That is the challenge we will have to face, right into 2001.

Would the Taoiseach agree that the benchmarking body is really beside the point because it will not report for two years? People, however, are facing price increases in the shops and have problems with their budgets now. They see people in the private sector – builders workers, for example – getting increases of up to 40%, yet they are being asked to accept tiny increases. The position is particularly severe in the clerical grades of the Civil Service where staff cannot be recruited because the pay levels are so low. For example, new staff cannot be recruited by Deputies whose secretaries retire, because the pay levels are so low. What will the Taoiseach do about that in the short term, instead of kicking it to some benchmarking body that will not issue a report for two years?

On 1 October, an increase of 8.5% was given to our clerical staff. As I have already said, the discussions involving public sector unions and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, within the social partnership, are examining precisely where they fell short on inflation and in what way that can be made up. That is the short-term aspect of the matter.

How soon will they report on that?

In the next few weeks.

With recommendations for pay increases?

With recommendations.

For pay increases?

We will have to see what the recommendations are. How can I pre-empt the recommendations? There is no point in recommending them if my position is already pre-determined.

If they are reporting on budget day will the Taoiseach provide for the pay increases in the budget?

We will wait until budget day.

Does the Taoiseach agree the gap between rich and poor has been growing, and continues to grow, under the stewardship of Government policies? What has been said to employers regarding the view of ICTU negotiators who say the Government alone cannot compensate for inflationary pressures on wages and salaries? On a related but different matter, can the Taoiseach's comments about environmental bodies be reconsidered? Their involvement in the terms of reference of the NESF is hardly adequate given the enormous financial, social and environmental challenges currently facing this country, among many others, in The Hague. Would that provoke the Taoiseach to review the seriousness with which the Government takes the issues being highlighted by the environmental NGOs? Would the Taoiseach agree that competitiveness will be seriously undermined unless we take into consideration the challenges of being far less dependent on fossil fuels and having a greater self reliance in energy and energy saving? Is that part of his brief for competitiveness in the future?

On the last point, with the widening representation in the social partnership process, the system is now well established whereby if the appropriate pillar agrees then the Government tends to sympathetically take account of the factors, once they do not disturb the balance. If particular groups wish to come into the process, the system has been there for almost a decade to allow them to follow it. I said that no such group had brought forward an application but other groups involved in the National Economic and Social Forum were putting forward these cases.

On the Deputy's final point, many groups have made pre-budget submissions on the issues being addressed by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in The Hague. I am sure the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will address the conclusions reached at what I accept is a very important conference. Let us see what arises from it.

On the Deputy's earlier question, the strength of the partnership process has been its ability to solve problems. Inflation has, effectively, doubled this year. This has created a problem. While it presents a real challenge, it is not insurmountable. Between tax breaks and salary increases, people expected to see their incomes increase by 14%. This has probably been reduced to 9%, which, admittedly, is not as high as expected. This is being addressed. It has an effect in the private sector. Deputy Bruton is correct that the many employers in the private sector who can afford to do so have granted additional increases, but this does not apply across the board. There are categories, therefore, which are of the view that this is unreasonable. We have to try to resolve this problem.

It is a programme of fairness as well as prosperity.

Yes. This problem has to be resolved within a short period.

The gap between rich and poor is widening.

The Deputy will accept that an extra 300,000 people are at work. This has created extra resources. Many of the arguments that we used to have a decade ago about the poverty trap have long since been eliminated. While those dependent on social welfare are still in difficulty, this is not true of society as a whole. It behoves us to help them by removing the difficulties. This is being done by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs by way of increases in recent Social Welfare Bills.

Question No. 12 in my name relates to an additional pillar to social partnership for the environmental sector. The Taoiseach intimated that this has not happened because NGOs have not made a formal application. He has missed the point. If we are to proceed with sustainable development and honour, rather than breach, a series of EU directives on the environment, we need to place the principles of sustainability at the centre of the political agenda and economic planning and not leave it to the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Given that we have failed totally to decouple economic growth and environmental degradation, we are in breach of greenhouse gas emission limits and water quality is disimproving, will the Taoiseach, as a matter of leadership and policy at central level, consider altering the structure of the partnership framework to provide for an additional pillar for the environmental sector to ensure economic growth will not continue at the expense of the environment?

The Deputy assumes that the NESC, the NESF and the other social partners ignore the issue, but they do not. It is an unfair assumption. The NESC has probably done more work in this area than anybody else, identifying ways by which we can keep sustainable development at the core of economic policy development. It is its strategy which underpins for this decade, as it did for the past decade successfully, social partnership. I do not accept the Deputy's argument that no one involved in social partnership, be it the NESC, the NESF or anybody else, has had an input. A large number of Members have made the case for it.

With regard to a separate pillar, that is a bigger issue which would need to be examined. It is not a case that has been strongly put. The case that sustainable development should be a key part of our policy is being put but not that it should be put forward as a separate pillar.

With regard to Questions Nos. 14 and 15 concerning the Taoiseach's remarks to the Confederation of British Industry, does the Taoiseach have reason to believe that the attitude of the CBI has changed considerably in respect of whether Britain will make an earlier or later entry into the euro? What was his assessment, following the informal discussions that would have taken place in the environs of that conference, as to what type of timetable is envisaged by our partners next door?

In giving a fair assessment of the conference, first it must be pointed out that it is a very heated debate. It looks as if there is no longer an in-between position. Two years ago there was a debate in which a case was put forward by both sides, but that is not the situation now. The lines are drawn now between the arguments for and against. The CBI, by a sizeable majority – a margin of seven to one according to the survey I was shown at the conference – is effectively against actively pursuing the issue. It is now off its list of issues.

My conclusion, after listening to a number of senior people on the night whose views were strongly held, is that it is not an agenda item until well into the next British Government's term of office. I believe CBI will take the view that it will be a matter for the then British Government. It is not something the CBI will actively pursue over the next period.

I agree with the Taoiseach's broad conclusion. If we are facing a period of up to five years before sterling is in the single currency, if that is to happen, has the Government, in the context of social partnership, examined the potential inflationary consequences a high value sterling will have on the domestic market over a period of time?

There are such examinations – it might be too strong to describe them as studies. I raised that issue following the CBI conference. There are five or six areas which need to be examined. They include the increase in oil prices, the interest rates of the ECB and how they will pan out in the medium term, the continued decline in the euro's exchange rate, the increase in duties of one type or other not just here but elsewhere and the price pressures in the domestic economy, whether they are housing, alcohol, services or whatever. We must also consider the headline inflation rate within the Union over the next period. I have talked to the Minister for Finance about this and I am aware that ECOFIN is carrying out some surveys but we, too, must look at this issue. I thought until recently that there was a strong prospect of the UK joining the euro in the early part of 2002, but that is not my view now.

Mr. Hayes

In reply to a previous question from Deputy Quinn, the Taoiseach confirmed that the forthcoming budget is an essential plank in the social partnership structure. Will the Taoiseach confirm that, following last Saturday's mini summit at Government Buildings, all Ministers will this year be aware of tax changes in the budget, unlike last year when only the triumvirate was aware of them? Will the Taoiseach tell the House what role the tax strategy group has in framing this year's budget, particularly in terms of idiot proofing it against the appalling mess that was made last year?

As I said in reply to a question from Deputy Bruton, at last week's Cabinet meeting, a meeting similar to those we and previous Governments normally have prior to the budget, we discussed all the relevant issues, including departmental and ministerial issues. Other than that, there will be no changes; the conventional procedures that have been laid down for many decades will be followed.

What was the Deputy's second question?

Mr. Hayes

I asked about the tax strategy group.

Backbenchers will be on the plinth again.

Mr. Hayes

There will be more fun and frolics.

The tax strategy group is doing extremely useful work in assisting the Govern ment, particularly the Minister for Finance, in preparing for the budget.

With regard to the questions on social partnership, will the Taoiseach indicate in the meetings with the social partners if consideration has been given at any level to a revision of the general pay terms of the PPF?

With regard to the housing forum established under the partnership agreement, how often has it met? When can we expect a report and recommendations from it on how to deal with the housing crisis?

On the pay issue, the case put forward by the trade union element of the social partners is that there should be compensation in one form or another for what has been lost by way of inflationary pressure. That is the substance of its case. Regardless of whether that is done by way of tax or pay measures or some other element, that is the basis on which the trade union movement considers compensation should be awarded. It reached agreement on one basis and given that did not happen, it put forward that case, and is entitled to do so, as that is provided in the rules of the Central Review Committee. That is what has been debated since 22 September and we have to come to a conclusion on that fairly shortly.

The housing forum has had a number of meetings, although I cannot tell the Deputy the precise number. A number of its proposals have been before the Cabinet or have been discussed by the Cabinet committee on infrastructure. The report that will lead to the introduction of the Bill the Deputy has raised regularly has been presented to the housing forum. The Bill will be drafted as quickly as possible based at the recommendations of the housing forum and others.

Will the Taoiseach agree that if a revision of the pay terms is firmly on the table from congress, if it has set a deadline for deciding whether it will continue with the PPF on the same day as budget day and if a pay concession is made by the Government that has implications for the budget for 2001? Surely the fundamental financial numbers of this budget are currently being negotiated by the Central Review Committee with the social partners? How could the issue of pay be resolved in the context of the budget without money? If money is to be provided, will it be provided in the budget and, if not and it is to be a matter of subsequent negotiation, will a budget presented here on budget day not be the definitive but a provisional budget?

The social partners have made their case. The interim report that I issued about two weeks ago states that they believe there should be some compensation for what they have lost. That case has to be concluded. The social partners have not put a deadline on that process. They have stated that the process with the Government should be completed as soon as possible, and I said the same as early as 22 September when the first meeting took place. I hope it will take place. The social partners have strongly emphasised, not a threat to social partnership but based on an assessment of what has happened in the branches all over the country, that they want to stay in the social partnership process and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. They want to continue to gain benefits from that in tax, pay, welfare, employment and all other aspects of the broad partnership agreement. However, they have correctly said that the basis for what they agreed in inflation has not happened and that, therefore, some form of compensation, in one form of other, must be taken into account, as I said to Deputy Gilmore. That is an entirely reasonable position for them to put and we must see if we can find a mechanism whereby this issue can be resolved. If that issue is resolved provision must be made for it. If it is not resolved we will have to see what happens but, as I said in my initial reply, it is too early to give a report on that other than to say that I have had numerous meetings with the leaders of the social partners – employers, trade unions, farmers and the community pillar – in recent months, the period covered by these questions, and they are all absolutely determined to find a resolution and to work through these difficulties so that the PPF continues. That is how we must find a resolution.

In effect the Taoiseach has confirmed that the budget is being negotiated with the social partners.

Regarding Question No. 1, is the Taoiseach aware that the position of the farming community has worsened substantially in recent weeks due to a fall in cattle prices from approximately 95p per pound to 82p per pound as a result of the BSE problems in France? In the context of the current discussions of the Central Review Committee, is the Government contemplating any action in view of the fact that that fall in price represents a huge income drop for a significant section of the community and for a significant social partner?

I am very much aware of these difficulties. I have met representatives of the IFA and the ICMSA at regional and national levels in the past few weeks and there has been a sharp decline in prices directly as a result of the French situation. A 17-hour meeting of Agriculture Ministers which ended at 8 a.m. today looked at what more can be done in this area to restore confidence. Last week there was a very high kill – I believe there were 38,000 cattle killed – but the previous week, with the bad weather and the start of this difficulty, there was little or no killing. This week will be another difficult week.

We will have to try to move quickly on the conclusions of this morning's meeting. Ireland is still an area of low incidence and, although it was 1989 that the first BSE cattle were detected, we must be careful with this situation. There are still some vital markets we must be careful about, such as Egypt, which receives 150,000 tons and is probably the biggest world market. From the report the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development gave me on this morning's meeting, the "infer" system – which I believe was invented by an Irishman – will be used for testing to bring the situation under control rapidly. I am concerned, however, that that will not start until—

Next January.

—next January and I am unsure how that will restore confidence in the next few weeks.

It will not.

I know other schemes have been looked at, such as aids to private storage, where factories would kill and hold carcases. That is not a great resolution. Three issues are important in this regard, the first of which is the price which will be resolved only by confidence being restored in the market. Deputy Bruton will understand that because of other events that happened last year, which had nothing to do with Ireland, the meetings were difficult in that certain scores were being settled. That was not helpful to anyone. We have to resolve this issue but we have to work to restore confidence in the market.

We must be careful and strong in regard to all our mechanisms. We have to protect what we have, and I am not referring only to the Egyptian market, although I am always conscious of that market because of its size and extent. Even though we have good credibility in this area, under the international veterinary group, it is something about which we can never be careful enough.

We also have to continue to extend our market base because a vulnerability has been highlighted in that just when we think everything is going fine, prices can take a major dip because of something happening on the international stage. I will not try to defend that because it is serious, but we have to be careful on those three points.

Is it not the case that this crisis has arisen because it transpired that France was not enforcing EU rules properly in regard to the separation of meat and bone meal to ensure that meat and bone meal from bovine animals was not fed back to bovine animals, and that the most elementary precautions that are being taken in Ireland, Britain and other countries were not taken in France? Is it not clear, therefore, that the system whereby it is left to national authorities to enforce EU rules in their own jurisdictions simply is not working, and that France is just one example of a number of delinquents as far as this is concerned? This matter needs to be taken up by the Taoiseach at EU level at the summit because there is no point in the European Union giving assurances that food is safe if those rules are not being enforced in practice.

Does the Taoiseach agree that, while the outcome of last night's meeting was very good – the Minister is to be complimented on it because it is the right approach and a lot of things could have gone wrong last night – at the same time more BSE cases will be detected in the short term, the net effect of which will be a further fall in confidence in the beef market? The Taoiseach should realise, and I hope he does, that Irish farmers are facing a very serious crisis over the winter as far as incomes are concerned, to the extent that they depend on bovine animal sales to put bread and butter on the table for their families.

I believe I have raised most of those points. The Deputy is correct when he says France was not adhering to the regulations. He will be aware that the Prime Minister and the President made a number of statements about what they were doing and the extent of—

The two of them were acting the maggot. They were scoring points off one another.

A number of statements were made and that debate exacerbated the lack of confidence surrounding the whole issue. I emphasise again that the rapid surveillance testing here and the fact that we do not allow any type of feed into the food chain for cattle, which has been intensified for what are called the casualty cattle over 13 months, should certainly help, but it is a confidence issue in the community and I am sure it will be discussed repeatedly in the next few weeks. At this stage, however, we have to do everything we can to restore confidence because in France the consumer market has effectively dissipated in a period of 15 days.

Barr
Roinn